Sara Morrison v BFF Thread 3

[SexRealistic]

For background please read here:

https://genderblog.net/sara-morrison-v-belfast-film-festival/

You want the action without the chatter follow on Twitter

From NW

... That list does not expressly include [employment tribunal] claims, but it does include at par 3(d) “proceedings in which the parties...

... have given their written consent to the proceedings being heard in accordance with paragraph (2)”."

"The Respondent relies on the version of Rule 53 of the IT and [employment tribunal] Rules in force until 1 December 2024. That rule now provides..."

"“Subject to Article 6(2) and (3) of the Industrial Tribunals Order and to paragraph (2), final hearings shall be conducted by a tribunal comprising an employment judge sitting alone or an employment judge and either one or two other members, in accordance with regulation 10.”"

Okay you do that thread then, meanwhile we will carry on.

Hate thread police.

If it's next to impossible to find panel members from Unions except with TRA associations, that means that women discriminated against for gender critical beliefs, or being forced into mixed facilities, would not be able to get a fair tribunal hearing. That is a very big deal. The only way round it would be to change the traditional composition of panels.

No we didn’t do this song
Clearly Brown Owl went rogue

From NW

"Since that is expressly subject to Article 6(2) and (3) of the Industrial Tribunals Order relied on by the Claimant, it offers no impediment to the Judge hearing the case alone, provided the Respondent consents."

"It follows that although the Respondent has, in effect, a veto over the Claimant’s proposal that the judge should continue to hear the case alone, the judge has the power...

... to take that course with the written consent of the parties. The Clamaint consents, so if the recusal application is granted, whether the case is able to be completed this week is...

... for the Respondent to decide."

ENDS

So there we are. We await the ruling, which is imminent...

THIS

The end game all along?

So it looks like the BBF's Barrister is objecting and it will have to be postponed. 😞

This is so important. Where is a woman to get a fair hearing?

If you're copying my summary at the top, can you add this link from nic's blog?
Nick's week 1 summary
https://genderblog.net/morrison-v-belfast-film-festival-week-1/

The objection was a bit more nuanced - it was that the panel member didn't raise the association either before the tribunal, or even on Friday, when it was very much in issue.

Perhaps if a panel member says upfront "my union is fully TWAW but I'm prepared to be open minded and judge this on its merits", then that's ok.

I do think this is important. I think he would indeed find it difficult to take a position divorced from NIPSA because he can't help but think of all the doors that will open for NIPSA members to come forward with claims against NIPSA. He has a vested interest in closing this down because there will, I'm sure, be many NIPSA members who would like to have spoken about women's rights without being labelled Mussolini and were probably actively silenced, there was probably a hostile environment for GCs within NIPSA with him as a key chief so he will have to be weighing up finding in favour for the claimant as a negative consequence for his own work.

From NW

Whilst we are waiting if you would like to support this exercise, please consider donating to get my nightly newsletter which rounds up each day's proceedings in court. It's a one off donation to join the mailing list. Thanks.

https://genderblog.net/donate/

Thanks, done.

Is this current? Objecting to what?

The Judge's head must be exploding with these pesky out of town lawyers disrupting her cosy world.

To lose one panel member is unfortunate, but to lose two is rather more than carelessness.

It’s actually so meta that the arguments are from links on here.

Honestly! The Court saying - No TERF wars on our TURF. And the argument was supplied by the TERFs.

Objecting to just the Judge sitting and no lay members on the panel.

I wouldn't accept that.Members of unions are one thing, there apparatchiks another.

I need a wee. Badly. Have I got time?

From NW

Obviously only donate if you can afford to. If you can't, please consider sharing this thread as it might appeal to people who haven't seen it yet.

We have been told ruling will now be made at 3pm.

SM thread 3 finishing on a cliff hanger is so with the vibe.

I mean it is entirely reasonable for a fair observer to believe that whilst he might think he can act independently from NIPSA within the setting of ET it is not really feasible given the weight of a finding for C here and the impact it will generally have as a consequence. He is bound to have that in the back of his mind whilst a) listening to the evidence and b) in absorbing its import and c) impossible for him to be fair with those factors in play.